Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Flauros has the same presence on Rokkenjima as all the rest of Beato's demons. THEY'RE IMAGINARY.

Yes, they're imaginary fantasy beings imagined from substantiated vessels. Shannon and Kanon are imaginary humans possessed by an existing human. I doubt either of these are news to you.

Quote:

You realize Beatrice is a lying liar who lies a lot, right? She's been selecting 'winners' the whole time and it's clear to anyone who's reread things. She's in cahoots with Rosa in EP2, for example.

She supported Rosa because Rosa had solved the epitaph (hinted in EP3 when she was just a step behind Eva,) which is where the gold bars came from. After everyone reneged on the succession part of the agreement, Krauss acting like it never happened and everyone else willing to let him have it just for equal shares (also hinted any other time they were shown finding the gold,) she poisoned them at the Halloween party they all organized together. Beatrice just cut them open, which is why Rosa was genuinely shocked on seeing them again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kealym

The reason i mention Flauros and Our Confessions (which is very canon), is that it shows us her PROCESS for making a gameboard.

It's also stated to be incomplete, and it's discarded without hesitation; why? If the bold is honestly her strategy, to get hands on, it's even internally contradictory. Why get directly involved and then try to make Krauss and Natsuhi appear responsible?Trying to sow dissent and trying to claim it's all the responsibility of the Golden Witch are mutually conflicting.

Then there's the broader contradictions:
* Knox's 1st: Yasu was not introduced as a character in the question arcs, which is when Willard has enough clues for the solution. Neither was "The Man from 19 years ago". Beatrice was introduced in late in EP1, but not as inhabiting a physical body, so to accuse her at that time would've conceded the game for the Human side.
* Van Dine's 11th: The servants cannot be the culprits. Operating as accomplices doesn't conflict with this, but Shannon/Kanon couldn't have initiated the 1st twilight.
Van Dine may not be applicable, but the rules cited in Red are; for example in EP 8 Willard cited the 12th without Red, only a handful of lines after citing the 7th in Red. This indicates there can be multiple independent culprits, but reinforces that servants can't be one of them.

Also, it's not a dyed-in-Red rule, but a genre convention that the most obvious suspect isn't it. The exceptions to this aren't considered good examples of the genre, if not a different genre using the guise of mystery. After her introduction, Beatrice becomes the most obvious suspect, and 'Our Confession' only reinforces that.

She supported Rosa because Rosa had solved the epitaph (hinted in EP3 when she was just a step behind Eva,) which is where the gold bars came from. After everyone reneged on the succession part of the agreement, Krauss acting like it never happened and everyone else willing to let him have it just for equal shares (also hinted any other time they were shown finding the gold,) she poisoned them at the Halloween party they all organized together. Beatrice just cut them open, which is why Rosa was genuinely shocked on seeing them again.

Why do they all acknowledge Beatrice, then, with almost no mention paid to Rosa whatsoever?

Quote:

* Knox's 1st: Yasu was not introduced as a character in the question arcs, which is when Willard has enough clues for the solution. Neither was "The Man from 19 years ago". Beatrice was introduced in late in EP1, but not as inhabiting a physical body, so to accuse her at that time would've conceded the game for the Human side.

There were mentions of a secret child as early as ep1. And Yasu does exist from the first episode... as, you know, Shannon, at the very least? And also Kanon and Beatrice. I don't think it was exactly proper, but the character exists in the sense that "Yasu" is just who these people are on the inside.

Quote:

Van Dine may not be applicable

That's correct, it isn't. So arguing from it is pointless.

Quote:

Also, it's not a dyed-in-Red rule, but a genre convention that the most obvious suspect isn't it. The exceptions to this aren't considered good examples of the genre, if not a different genre using the guise of mystery. After her introduction, Beatrice becomes the most obvious suspect, and 'Our Confession' only reinforces that.

It doesn't exactly count if you're looking at what she actually wrote. Shannon and Kanon are not exactly the most obvious suspects in ep1 and 2. Beatrice advancing herself as culprit in the meta-world is a completely different thing from the norm, and part of the reason Battler struggles with it.

Yes, they're imaginary fantasy beings imagined from substantiated vessels. Shannon and Kanon are imaginary humans possessed by an existing human. I doubt either of these are news to you.

Yes, and? Flauros is the same way, in the Our Confession Gameboard. Are Zepar and Furfur less canon because they show up in less Gameboards? You're being arbitrary. Flauros is canon.

Quote:

She supported Rosa because Rosa had solved the epitaph (hinted in EP3 when she was just a step behind Eva,) which is where the gold bars came from.

Wrong. Rosa doesn't solve the Epitaph in EP2. When the Epitaph is solved, Beatrice stops killing. In EP2, she kept killing, therefore it was unsolved. Rosa is an accomplice, however, since she is shown to be conspiring in both the first closed room and the death of Kinzo, along with demanding "Payment" from Beatrice. If Rosa solved the Epitaph, why would she be demanding gold from her in the chapel and stealing some off the table?

If she solved the epitaph, she would've known where the gold was and also have known about the bomb and a safe place to hide from it, just like Eva did in EP3. However, Rosa died, trying to outrun death, heading for water. Ergo, she did not solve the Epitaph.

Quote:

After everyone reneged on the succession part of the agreement, Krauss acting like it never happened and everyone else willing to let him have it just for equal shares (also hinted any other time they were shown finding the gold,) she poisoned them at the Halloween party they all organized together. Beatrice just cut them open, which is why Rosa was genuinely shocked on seeing them again.

According to Will, this isn't what happened. It also ignores the context of Beatrice's and the adult's actions in the scene where they talk, where everyone, including Rosa, accepts Beatrice as Kinzo's financial advisor, implying she showed them the gold. They also all then said they'd do what she said.

HMMM.

Quote:

It's also stated to be incomplete, and it's discarded without hesitation; why? If the bold is honestly her strategy, to get hands on, it's even internally contradictory. Why get directly involved and then try to make Krauss and Natsuhi appear responsible?Trying to sow dissent and trying to claim it's all the responsibility of the Golden Witch are mutually conflicting.

It's incomplete because it doesn't have a Reader, a finished Fantasy narrative, or (if I recall) even reaches the 10th Twilight. The gameboard's internal logic isn't the problem.

Also, despite her motives, Yasu needs to have atleast one of the adults help her. Controlling the servants isn't enough, since the servants have no ability to control the adults' actions. She's not trying to frame Krauss and Natsuhi, but use them to set up her game.

Quote:

* Knox's 1st: Yasu was not introduced as a character in the question arcs, which is when Willard has enough clues for the solution. Neither was "The Man from 19 years ago". Beatrice was introduced in late in EP1, but not as inhabiting a physical body, so to accuse her at that time would've conceded the game for the Human side.

This isn't how Knox's first works. Yasu is Shannon and Kanon, and that's what the Knox would indicate. An early-introduced character revealing they've been falsifying parts of their identity the whole time is valid and used in some of Knox's own novels.

Quote:

* Van Dine's 11th: The servants cannot be the culprits. Operating as accomplices doesn't conflict with this, but Shannon/Kanon couldn't have initiated the 1st twilight.

This isn't how Van Dine's rule works. First of all, Yasu isn't a servant, but the secret head of the family working as a servant as cover. This is valid for Van Dine. Secondly, you neglect Van Dine's reasoning for this rule; That servants in his day were always used in mystery stories as copout culprits who had no characterization and could be blamed because they're not worth empathizing with. Yasu doesn't satisfy this, as she is geared to have more sympathy and characterization than anyone else in Umineko.

Van Dine may not be applicable, but the rules cited in Red are; for example in EP 8 Willard cited the 12th without Red, only a handful of lines after citing the 7th in Red. This indicates there can be multiple independent culprits, but reinforces that servants can't be one of them.

You realize the only times that Will used the Red are 1) used in a non-Beatrice Gameboard before Bern summoned him, and 2) Directly denied by Bern as the Gamemaster, right?

also, good job, he quoted a Van Dine in Red. That only technically means that it's true that Van Dine's 11th reads thusly, not that it applies.

Quote:

Also, it's not a dyed-in-Red rule, but a genre convention that the most obvious suspect isn't it. The exceptions to this aren't considered good examples of the genre, if not a different genre using the guise of mystery. After her introduction, Beatrice becomes the most obvious suspect, and 'Our Confession' only reinforces that.

'Beatrice' is a false identity. The whole premise of the novel is to find out who Beatrice is. Beatrice = Culprit = ? is the equation Ryukishi asked us to solve. You can't solve a mystery by saying "The culprit was....The Origami Killer!" That doesn't identify anyone.

If she solved the epitaph, she would've known where the gold was and also have known about the bomb and a safe place to hide from it, just like Eva did in EP3. However, Rosa died, trying to outrun death, heading for water. Ergo, she did not solve the Epitaph.

Knox's 8th: It's forbidden for the case to be solved without Clues! Was it ever foreshadowed that Kuwadorian would be a safe haven from the bomb?

Yep. Only it's actually the other way around.The fact that you could survive the "accident" in Kuwarodian actually hints that the "accident" had a radius of destruction.

Technically if you count all of ep1-4 it's sort of foreshadowed, in that we know the radius of the bomb and Ange testifies that Kuwadorian still exists, so it's retroactively possible to understand that there is a safe haven.

Note that there is also the fact that Rosa knows Kuwadorian exists and roughly where it is, yet she still believed it possible to just run, and she wasn't even running in the right direction. This would seem to suggest she didn't accurately know the extent of the threat, which in turn would posit she didn't solve the epitaph or if she did, nobody appeared to tell her everything. More likely she didn't (or was cutting a deal for the answer to make it look like she did) and was working as an accomplice.

Why do they all acknowledge Beatrice, then, with almost no mention paid to Rosa whatsoever?

I wouldn't assume any scene Battler wasn't present at to be in a reliable POV; that question is like asking who knocked on the dining room door and delivered the letter in EP5. If there was some truth to this scene, it would be that the parents are agreeing to regard Shannon in costume as Beatrice the Golden Witch for the Halloween party.

Quote:

There were mentions of a secret child as early as ep1. And Yasu does exist from the first episode... as, you know, Shannon, at the very least? And also Kanon and Beatrice. I don't think it was exactly proper, but the character exists in the sense that "Yasu" is just who these people are on the inside.

Speculation of a secret child isn't the introduction of a character. And Shannon and Kanon are distinct personalities, hence their deaths can be confirmed in Red when only one has been killed. Since they're also servants, see Dine's 7th.

Quote:

That's correct, it isn't. So arguing from it is pointless.

Red declarations are not. If there was any doubt about Dine's rules, Will reinforced the applicability of the Red ones by citing one without Red.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Are Zepar and Furfur less canon because they show up in less Gameboards?

The butterfly brooch, included in TIPS the first EP they appear.

Quote:

Wrong. Rosa doesn't solve the Epitaph in EP2. When the Epitaph is solved, Beatrice stops killing.

Wrong, the killings always continue. EP3 was the only one declared not to be a forgery, and the killings continued in spite of Eva's solution of the Epitaph. The truth of EP7 is that the killings will continue even without an epitaph or Beatrice, and that none of the siblings are innocent -- the only ones who are blameless are the ones who miss the opportunity to shoot first.

Quote:

If she solved the epitaph, she would've known where the gold was and also have known about the bomb and a safe place to hide from it, just like Eva did in EP3. However, Rosa died, trying to outrun death, heading for water. Ergo, she did not solve the Epitaph.

Remember the puzzle in EP8? She knew how to get each bar out, and she did that exactly as many times as she could.

Quote:

It also ignores the context of Beatrice's and the adult's actions in the scene where they talk

So, who knocked on the door in EP5, again? Without a qualified witness, which would be Battler's POV in EP1-4, it's not reliable unless fact-checked in Red.

Quote:

'Beatrice' is a false identity. The whole premise of the novel is to find out who Beatrice is.

Beatrice is as true an identity as Shannon and Kanon, yet Red Truths can place their existence. Finding out who she is isn't the premise, because she's not the culprit -- she's the scapegoat. All she does is throw out the apple of discord, and then exploits the obfuscated events to confuse them further. Kanon said as much to chick Beato, leading to her epiphany.

Speculation of a secret child isn't the introduction of a character. And Shannon and Kanon are distinct personalities, hence their deaths can be confirmed in Red when only one has been killed. Since they're also servants, see Dine's 7th.

They're not distinct. They talk about their unique relationship to one another constantly. Also your assertions about ep3 are not true. Basically pretty much everything you've said is entirely factually wrong and not supported by text or common sense.

Show us where Van Dine's rules are explicitly stated to be applicable to Beatrice's games, when Dlanor won't even make the assertion that her games conform to Knox when asked in ep5. Explain the distinction between the brooch and mention of a secret heir and the revelation of '67 Beatrice and the treatment of Kanon and all of that other stuff which is more or less the same degree of foreshadowing. Demonstrate that Beatrice is not actively determining victimhood by showing how the First Twilight occurs absent her agency. Contextualize the payment boxes of ep4 without pre-planned accomplices.

Fantasy scenes still ground in reality in displaying some more important meaning. If the meaning of the ep2 midnight chapel scene is meant to relate to Rosa's activities, why then does it not give her anything of the sort of distinguish her from the other adults? Why is Beatrice the prominent figure? What is being said here? The meaning of the knock scene is clear in the subsequent use of red to remove the possibility of a knock existing; it is proof of a mutual lie and suggestive of a large conspiracy to present false information to Natsuhi.

Beatrice is as true an identity as Shannon and Kanon, yet Red Truths can place their existence. Finding out who she is isn't the premise, because she's not the culprit -- she's the scapegoat. All she does is throw out the apple of discord, and then exploits the obfuscated events to confuse them further. Kanon said as much to chick Beato, leading to her epiphany.

Show us where Van Dine's rules are explicitly stated to be applicable to Beatrice's games,

The most blatant proof is that they are in Red. Beatrice never uses the name of the Witch Hunter Knox (which makes 'Confessions' even less plausible due to her invitation to Dlanor,) but her Red Truths uphold the laws, and she makes oblique reference to them as early as EP2. Why do you think Erika invited Dlanor to Beatrice's game board in the first place?

Quote:

Explain the distinction between the brooch and mention of a secret heir and the revelation of '67 Beatrice and the treatment of Kanon and all of that other stuff which is more or less the same degree of foreshadowing.

Isn't there enough distinction between an item that serves as a vessel for fantasy beings who aren't relevant to the mystery and a person who isn't introduced as a character? Zephar and Furfur's roles are only symbolic and cosmetic; they don't do anything -- hell, they don't even do anything in the strictly fantasy scenes.

Quote:

Demonstrate that Beatrice is not actively determining victimhood by showing how the First Twilight occurs absent her agency. Contextualize the payment boxes of ep4 without pre-planned accomplices.

The 'roulette game' behind the epitaph is repeatedly emphasized by Claire/Beatrice in EP 7. "Traps where you don't know who will get caught, or even whether anyone will get caught at all, are more thrilling and interesting." Beatrice plays the same games of chance as Kinzo. Those payment boxes were sent just like the multiple forgeries in message bottles; Beato had no clue they would actually arrive, or what was going to happen other than that there would be no survivors. Ange points out what an unreliable method Beatrice used to send the deposit info to the families.

Quote:

Fantasy scenes still ground in reality in displaying some more important meaning.

And to obfuscate. There is nothing you can take out of them that aren't corroborated by a qualified witness or asserted in Red.

which makes 'Confessions' even less plausible due to her invitation to Dlanor

What exactly about Our Confession is it exactly that makes it doubtworthy? Your argument reads a little like somebody deliberately ignoring an episode in a TV series because it goes against their personal understanding or preference concerning that series. Our Confession was written by Ryukishi, released under the When They Cry label, advertised as being canon to Umineko...so no matter whether you like it or not it is canon (or you could just start tossing out any of the TIPs at random).

Concerning the Flauros discussion, she is technically the same as Gaap as well as the Chiesters or Zepar and Furfur concerning that she personifies both a concept and an item. She is the explosion that rips apart the study in the Confession plot and her vessel are the explosives.

Quote:

Isn't there enough distinction between an item that serves as a vessel for fantasy beings who aren't relevant to the mystery and a person who isn't introduced as a character?

On the level of foreshadowing in a mystery, there isn't any distinction.
A certain element of distortion is important in most mysteries and as long as a character is introduced early on but alluded to even through apparently unconnected parts in the story, it would be the readers goal to make that connection.
Technically the mention of the possibility of a "secret heir" is the introduction of a character, be it a dead one or a living one. Also Beatrice in EP3 mentions that it is her who inherited all the gold from Kinzo, there is mention of her being the "master of the mansion at night", the servants never addressing their "master" by name.

Quote:

The 'roulette game' behind the epitaph is repeatedly emphasized by Claire/Beatrice in EP 7.

The roulette doesn't mean though that Beatrice will stay completely inactive, if that was the case nothing would happen at all. It is rather that she leaves it up to chance who will carry out what role. Who might run into her during the first day when she meets Maria? Which people are in an unobserved spot during the first night? Are there enough people to stage the first twilight without her dying as well? Does anybody solve the epitaph? etc.

And yes, she would have stopped if anybody found the gold, which is shown by EP7. This is certification that somebody else continued the murders in EP3. Who that person is is yours to choose, I think it was Nanjo, others think it was Eva, again others blame Kyrie (though that is pretty much ruled out by the EP8 manga), yet it is made very clear, even on the fantasy-plane, that it is not Beatrice/Yasu continuing the murders. In EP2 on the other hand it can only be her.

Doesn't the ep 8 manga make it reasonably clear that Yasu killed Nanjo in ep 3? I thought everyone else was ruled out?

As for the rule about servants, I often wondered if what Ryu was getting at is that Kannon and Shannon WEREN'T the killers. In a personality construct thing, Shannon would never kill George, and Kanon would never kill Jessica. So even when they survive after these people's deaths, it is because they did not and would not commit the crime, and it is not their plot (though them also truly not being servants is also possible under this interpretation, they are technically masters). I know it's awfully wanky, but that isn't exactly evidence against Ryu doing it.

Also yeah, I probably oversold how seductive Bice would be in that scenario (that is more like Black-Bice), but that doesn't mean they didn't mutually create a way for them to live together, and decide that it needed the gold. A whirlwind offer of "if we take the gold, we can live together" is still possible. Cat-box.

As for the rule about servants, I often wondered if what Ryu was getting at is that Kannon and Shannon WEREN'T the killers. In a personality construct thing, Shannon would never kill George, and Kanon would never kill Jessica. So even when they survive after these people's deaths, it is because they did not and would not commit the crime, and it is not their plot (though them also truly not being servants is also possible under this interpretation, they are technically masters). I know it's awfully wanky, but that isn't exactly evidence against Ryu doing it.

Well, it fits with the ep3 red cheat. "Shannon" and "Kanon" do not commit murder. Only another entity (which we can just call "Beatrice") does that. However, it's pretty clear that the whole thing is the action of a single intellect as otherwise things like the ep3 First Twilight or Kanon's "death" in ep1 are impossible.

It creates a scenario where "Kanon" would never kill Jessica, but is perfectly content to allow "Beatrice" to do it. Or where both "Shannon" and "Kanon" are willing to die to deceive everyone in order to permit "Beatrice" to go on killing. And note this totally does happen for both their supposed loved ones, including twice to George.

One could argue for a multiple personalities deal and that Shannon and Kanon wouldn't voluntarily commit these acts, but I'm not sure you can actually back that up as it appears that they must either be willing accomplices or simply all the actions of a single will that is not in any way divided or insane, which I think is the only explanation that gets us to the answer of ep3 the way Will/Yasu saw it.

As an author this essentially means that Beatrice is caught in something of a lie. It's true that Shannon and Kanon won't do certain things, but they're just characters being acted out by the board killer who is entirely capable of doing all of those things even though they know that the servant characters would object to them. The notion of Kanon's struggles being useless is basically literal: Even if Kanon wouldn't do what the board killer wants, "Beatrice" can make him complicit because the true face wants to commit the murders. Essentially, it's Shannon and Kanon's unwillingness that's the act.

This seems a reversal from reality though, where Yasu's conflicting feelings and attachment to the people she cares for are the truth and "the culprit" is the mask. The Beatrice of the boards is not the same person as her creator at all.

However, it's pretty clear that the whole thing is the action of a single intellect as otherwise things like the ep3 First Twilight or Kanon's "death" in ep1 are impossible.

Huh? You mean in ep1 boiler room? I asumed Kanon did not die in ep1 at all. neither as a person or something else. The whole point of ep4 Lamdba truths is that he didn't die. Or are you talking about something else?

Huh? You mean in ep1 boiler room? I asumed Kanon did not die in ep1 at all. neither as a person or something else. The whole point of ep4 Lamdba truths is that he didn't die. Or are you talking about something else?

The only reason for Kanon to "die" in that part was to fit with Beatrice's schemes and allow her to move about without being tied to Shannon or Kanon's roles.

It's true nothing killed Kanon, because the person didn't die, but Beatrice allowed Kanon to essentially be "eliminated" as a character. He may have had willingly complicit people in his fakery (for example he could've made up a line to Jessica, or simply had Nanjo lie to everyone), but the purpose of his death doesn't actually resist Beatrice; it assists her.

In other words, Kanon "taking a stand" against the witch ultimately only helps her and the whole thing comes across as entirely planned on the culprit's part. So I doubt seriously it was a personality issue as if Kanon had such a distinct personality he wouldn't willingly participate in the fakery. In short, Kanon is just an act and the culprit can "eliminate" him if she wishes, but she does so in conformity with how Kanon "would" behave.

It's not all that different from the fantasy narrative Beatrice weaves in to make Shannon and Kanon more noble in defense of their loves, something that clearly didn't happen in Turn because it was Shannon/Kanon/Beatrice who murdered them. I doubt seriously the killer was struggling with actual personalities opposed to the murder.

The only reason for Kanon to "die" in that part was to fit with Beatrice's schemes and allow her to move about without being tied to Shannon or Kanon's roles.

It's true nothing killed Kanon, because the person didn't die, but Beatrice allowed Kanon to essentially be "eliminated" as a character. He may have had willingly complicit people in his fakery (for example he could've made up a line to Jessica, or simply had Nanjo lie to everyone), but the purpose of his death doesn't actually resist Beatrice; it assists her.

In other words, Kanon "taking a stand" against the witch ultimately only helps her and the whole thing comes across as entirely planned on the culprit's part. So I doubt seriously it was a personality issue as if Kanon had such a distinct personality he wouldn't willingly participate in the fakery. In short, Kanon is just an act and the culprit can "eliminate" him if she wishes, but she does so in conformity with how Kanon "would" behave.

It's not all that different from the fantasy narrative Beatrice weaves in to make Shannon and Kanon more noble in defense of their loves, something that clearly didn't happen in Turn because it was Shannon/Kanon/Beatrice who murdered them. I doubt seriously the killer was struggling with actual personalities opposed to the murder.

Ah, right. It's just that ep1 did not rely on the whole Kanon/Shannon/Yasu to solve everything, so I kinda forgot it gets more convoluted.

Doesn't the ep 8 manga make it reasonably clear that Yasu killed Nanjo in ep 3? I thought everyone else was ruled out?

Yes, but isn't it a swell question why exactly Yasu would kill Nanjo? We already know at this point that EVA and Eva are distinct characters on the board, EVA herself said that she is no longer Eva and can make moves on her own, so she is basically as much a free pawn as Beatrice, who is described by Bern in EP1 as "not necessarily being tied to one woman" (which then of course was mostly a hint both towards the "multiple characters being one" angle, as well as hinting towards the line of Beatrices).

When it comes to a possible EP3 Nanjo-culprit theory it basically goes like this:
After all servants have "died" in the first twilight Nanjo seems fairly sure that he can secure a larger part of the cake for himself but also knows that nobody would take him seriously anyway (basically the "Forgery of Purple Truth" plot).
Why were Rosa and Maria murdered without the usage of guns? Because the culprit at that point did not possess a gun, which is also the reason why Rosa did not consider shooting.
The fourth to sixth twilight is actually the one that's most questionable, but also not impossible for him. Hideyoshi was likely killed in the struggle with Kyrie and Rudolph though.
Nanjo was actually the one who probably knew that George left and was the one who was "convinced that the witch did it". It is unlikely that Eva killed George and other people have alibis. He could have snuck out and killed him out of fear of being found out.
The strangulation of Natsuhi and Krauss could also be explained by the culprit not having a gun.
In the end Yasu takes revenge on Nanjo by shooting him at point range.

The fact that the stakes were used also highly speaks against Eva being the culprit, but it is likely that Nanjo would know where the stakes are.

Of course this could also all be explained with lovesick, insane Yasu theory.

The only issue I'd take with that is... Nanjo, really? He's a doughy older man who isn't known for being physically strong. While it's possible he could in fact kill Rosa in a surprise attack (it's not like Rosa wouldn't let him get close, she has no reason to fear him) and I don't have any objection to his being able to kill Maria, Krauss is a big guy and there's no clear indication as to how Nanjo might have incapacitated both he and Natsuhi in such a way as to allow him time to kill them both.

If Krauss were conscious, I doubt Nanjo could kill him without a weapon. If Krauss were somehow rendered unconscious prior to death, how did Nanjo do it and when? The only way I could really see this working is if Nanjo basically sedated both of them first, then dragged them somewhere they wouldn't be found immediately and strangled them out. Nearly anything that would require Nanjo to straight-up fight people seems implausible, to say the least, so he would have to surprise, trick, or otherwise deal with people in an underhanded manner.

Neat idea though. Although it makes me wonder why he wouldn't have tried anything with Jessica when "treating" her. Seems like it would've been an ideal time to kill her off, and she's basically helpless. Or was he perhaps planning to do it and just never got around to it on account of getting shot? And if he was surprised by Yasu, does that mean he just assumed the First Twilight to be real? Isn't "confirming" the deaths practically his whole job as an accomplice?